List Watched Files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no behavioral annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full burden and it does well by disclosing that no background file watcher exists and that returned paths are meant for manual monitoring or refresh. This is valuable beyond the schema. It could go further by stating whether paths are relative or absolute, but the core behavior is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: the core action is front-loaded, and the important caveat about no background watcher plus the recommended follow-up action appears immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple listing tool with fully documented optional parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the main operational caveat and usage pattern. A slight gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this tool over closely related list tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well documented. The description adds only general context about file types and returned paths, not deeper parameter semantics. This meets the baseline without adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: list scene, script, and/or resource files in the project. It is specific about the resource types and implies monitoring/refresh use, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like godot_get_project_files or godot_list_scenes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: use the returned paths with your editor or call godot_refresh_project() after external changes. It also clarifies that no background watcher runs, which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative list/search tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.